Resident Evil: Extinction

*Warning* Spoilers

I’m honestly not sure how I should be reacting, but I’ll admit that I found myself pleasantly satisfied as I walked out of Resident Evil: Extinction. There were some commendable zombie survival issues raised, and I definitely enjoyed seeing a new movie set in a post-apocalyptic world, but I can’t help thinking that the good doctor’s super zombies looked like they’d walked right off of an Evil Dead set, and that Alice’s growing telekinetic powers really should have stayed in a galaxy far far away.

Granted, I fully believe that Ash is a god among men, and I do have warm fuzzy feelings about rancors and mynocks, but I think I’m simply succumbing to the insidiously seductive temptation of some impossible zombie-fighting-Jedi fantasy. Yes, I’m a dork, I know. But I couldn’t help but hear the whispers of old Obi Wan as Alice was straining for her blade in the final battle. Please forgive my bias. If you don’t share similar sentiments, or aren’t wide open to extreme stretches of the sci-fi imagination, this film might leave you longing for something a little more grounded in reality. I’ll fully admit that I am willing to forgive a lot, as long as I get my zombie fix.

Now, like I mentioned above, there were some significant zombie survival issues raised in the film, and I’d like to take a little time to discuss a few. However, I also want to point out that I’m going to limit my comments to rather broad topics. I hope this is understandable, as I’ve only watched the film once, and I don’t want to start discussing details that I might recall incorrectly. That said, let me begin.

[LONG-TERM DEFENSE]

The first big topic that jumped out was the concept of continuous movement in a post-apocalyptic world. It is likely that I am forgetting something or another, but I don’t believe this is too common a theme in the zombie genre. Most of what I’ve seen and read has instead focussed on the establishment of heavily fortified, and sustainable, fixed positions. However, the premise behind this need to move was that one needed to stay ahead of the the zombie hordes, for if you stayed in a single position too long, you would eventually be surrounded, and unable to ever escape again.

I think there is real truth to this. I don’t know how likely it is that zombies will be instinctively drawn to your position across great distances, but it seems logical that, over time, as random roaming zombies intermittently stumble across your fortress, more and more undead will collect at your fences. The survivor caravan certainly made more sense than the Umbrella strategy of holing up in their fancy underground lab, whose surface entrance was only protected by a single chain-link fence. I really don’t understand how an organization could have constructed these monumentally sophisticated facilities, and then decided that a single chain-link fence would serve as adequate surface protection. While Umbrella’s fence, at least, looked a bit sturdier than the example in Day of the Dead, the strategy, and all of its flaws, are virtually identical.

Now while the movement strategy has merit over the bury-yourself-in-a-hole strategy, it still suffers from the same flaws that would doom any ill-prepared fortress inhabitant, that being a finite limit of sustainability. Granted, if much of humanity is wiped out in a short period of time, there may be a wide-spread supply of non-perishable goods at your disposal. However, as nothing new is being produced, there is a limit, and eventually you will run out. That was the problem facing the survivor caravan. They were having trouble maintaining their food and gasoline reserves. They managed well for a good number of years, but eventually it gets harder and harder to resupply. I think I might give my endorsement towards this strategy as a temporary measure (and definitely a better alternative than getting trapped somewhere without long-term hope), but only as a means to survive while seeking out a permanent home that can be inhabited indefinitely.

[ZOMBIE DOMESTICATION]

I’m not sure why this theme refuses to die, but there seems to be a fair amount of interest in the prospect of domesticating zombies. I believe it is the central topic of Fido (which I haven’t seen yet), it plays a prominent role in Day of the Dead, and it makes an appearance at the end of Shaun of the Dead. Now frankly, I just can’t grasp why anyone would want to keep these monsters around. Yes, they used to be our friends and family, but they sure as hell aren’t any more.

As is demonstrated by the films that bring up this topic, pursuit of this fantasy seems to be motivated by greed, and apparently the desire for guilt free slavery. Granted, I won’t feel any remorse for head-shotting as many zombies as I can, but, if anything, I would consider it a kindness to the poor souls whose bodies were reanimated by this horrible plague. I’m certainly not going to be one to take advantage of these victims by whipping their corpses into servitude. In the case of Extinction, the hazards of attempting to domesticate a zombie became more than abundantly clear. Not only did multiple scientists fall victim to their own test subjects, but in this scenario, they only succeeded in creating stronger, faster, and smarter killing machines.

[ZOMBIE PHYSIOLOGY]

Another point of interest is how the virus affected non-human organisms. As we saw in the first two films, the T-Virus seems to adapt to canines (or at least the Doberman breed) in a stable (undead) manner, and it just goes to town when injected into whatever poor creature was used to spawn the Licker monsters, but there wasn’t much further elaboration on the topic.

In Extinction, however, we learn that this virus is a plague upon virtually all life. Plants and animals alike are all but completely wiped out across the planet. I think the narration may have even said that the virus had an effect on the oceans, and general water levels across the planet, but don’t quote me on that (I need to re-watch the film). It may have simply been due to the widespread loss of plant life.

This is an interesting theory, but I don’t think it is one that can be very well prepared for. If all plant and animal life go extinct, I think we’re screwed, as I don’t believe there is any hope for long-term sustainability at that point. If at least some plant and animal life survive the plague, then I suppose there is a measure of hope, though far less than in your average zombie apocalypse scenario. However, as I believe I have mentioned in the past, I really don’t see a virus with such a universal range of adaptability emerging naturally, or even by human design.

The one other creature shown to have adapted and survived in the film was the crow. I think this choice was made more for establishing the film’s mood, than believing this particular species had any greater likelihood of surviving. Regardless, the idea that the crows had fed upon the undead was an interesting concept. Like I have pondered in the past, it raises the question of inter-species viral transmission, but it also begs the question, how will animals, in general, react to the undead presence? Will the undead pursue and eat animals, or will they mutually ignore each other?

Different films and stories have offered varying opinions on this topic, and Extinction is no exception. Unfortunately, without a real life example to study, I don’t believe any theory can be defended with much conviction. Personally, I find the idea of a contagion with the T-Virus’s potential a bit far fetched. Beyond that, I don’t think there is any way of knowing what will happen, until it happens.

[REGION / CLIMATE]

The final item I’d like to make note of is the survivors’ plan to relocate to Alaska. Alice finds a log of radio transmissions alleging that the virus had not reached Alaska. I don’t recall it specifically stating why this region was free of the plague, but I would guess that the film’s writers were theorizing that a combination of physical isolation, low population density, and extreme weather, would serve as a sufficient buffer for halting the plague’s spread.

As always, I cannot say for sure, but I think this is a reasonably plausible theory. It can be directly correlated that the greater an area’s population density, the lower one’s chances for survival. Remote and isolated regions of the world have a much lower likelihood of exposure to an outbreak, and even if infected do reach the region, there will be far fewer people to contract and transmit the infection to others.

As I believe other zombie stories have discussed, extreme weather may also physically slow down the advance of the undead. Arctic cold may freeze zombies solid (though Rise theorized otherwise), and desert heat, wind, and sand may eventually blast the undead down to dust. It remains to be seen how resilient the undead will be, but human beings have adapted to life at every extreme this planet offers, and we should utilize that advantage.

Well folks, like I admitted, I was quite pleased with this latest chapter of the Resident Evil series. Granted, it had plenty of questionable moments, but it was a substantial improvement over Apocalypse, and I did find it damn entertaining. I hope you’ve found these comments sufficient for the time being, but, if not, I will give the film a closer look after it comes out on DVD.

Read other “Resident Evil” posts:

• Lasers, skinless mutants, and an army of the undead, you say? Hm.. well, what benefits does your company offer?
  Resident Evil (The Movie)
• Free-falling marksmanship? Probably not a zombie apocalypse priority.
  Resident Evil: Apocalypse